| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5331 2024 SLD 5331 = 2024 YLR 704 |
Lahore High Court
ivil Revision No. 355-D of 2000, decided on 20th October, 2021*. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2021.
Before Safdar Saleem Shahid, J
Sh. Karim-ud-Din and Sh. Arfan Karim-ud-Din for Petitioners/Plaintiff. Aejaz Ahmed Ansari and Aqeel Ahmad Ansari for
Respondents/ Defendants.
ivil Revision No. 355-D of 2000, decided on 20th October, 2021*. Date of hearing: 29th September, 2021.
Before Safdar Saleem Shahid, J
Sh. Karim-ud-Din and Sh. Arfan Karim-ud-Din for Petitioners/Plaintiff. Aejaz Ahmed Ansari and Aqeel Ahmad Ansari for
Respondents/ Defendants.
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
NIAZ AHMAD and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2),151,21
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 12(2), 151 & O. XLI, R. 21---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S.24---Maxim "a man who seeks equity must come with clean hands"---Scope---Application for restoration of revision petition, dismissal of---Suit for possession filed by respondent/pre-emptor (deceased) was concurrently decreed--- Petitioners/defendants filed revision petition before High Court which was dismissed due to non-prosecution--- Respondent filed an execution petition and during its pendency he submitted the copy of the order of the Court for dismissal of revision and got warrant of possession in their favour and subsequently they got the possession of the suit land---Six months after the dismissal of the civil revision and after four months of the proceedings of warrant of possession, the vendees/judgment debtor filed an application for restoration of civil revision---In the said application vendees did not mention anything regarding the proceedings of warrant of possession of the suit land whereas record showed that they were present in the said proceedings---Petitioners/defendants had moved the application for withdrawal of pre-emption amount from the Court and as per procedure all the vendees signed over the application and received their respective shares---Petitioners/defendants did not deem it necessary to inform the Court regarding the withdrawal of amount or mentioning the taking over the possession of the decree holder, which was very strange because if such situation had been mentioned before the Court, the situation would have been different---During the proceedings of civil revision the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte---High Court allowed the civil revision ex-parte and set-aside judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below and dismissed the respondent's suit with costs throughout---Conduct of the petitioners/ defendants-vendees showed that they had not come with clean hands and any discretionary relief or even relief would not available to a person who came to Court with un-cleaned hands---In an application the applicant/legal heirs of the deceased pre-emptor had mentioned the reason that impugned judgment was…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492